BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[shepdawg]

Congrats. Did your pace program have you taking the simulate MBE this early? Mine isn't for like 3 weeks.

Yeah. We have been done with MBE subjects for over almost 2 weeks now, because we started May 2.

[tfer2222]

Congrats. Did your pace program have you taking the simulate MBE this early? Mine isn't for like 3 weeks.

Yeah. We have been done with MBE subjects for over almost 2 weeks now, because we started May 2.

May 2? damn. must be a CA taker?

We didn't start until the 28th.

[AMCD]

No, CA we started around the 21st May. Just finished property today -- last MBE subject. Have the full day MBE practice on Friday, essays on Thursday. Gulp.

[Tangerine Gleam]

Not doing so hot on these practice essays. It's a wee bit demoralizing. I'm going to hold off on submitting anything else to BarBri for grading until I've learned more of the law.

[td6624]

i'm ok with the essays that fall within mbe subjects

beyond that....................... nope. i'll fix it eventually.

[bgdddymtty]

Pretty happy with a 21/25 on the Con Law PRE, since that's been one of my weaker subjects.

I'm really upset about question #14, though. I won't post a spoiler in this forum in the interests of those who haven't yet taken the quiz, but feel free to give my complaint an "opportunity to be heard" here.

[AgentSCo]

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

[BCLS]

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

I read the CMR and the lecture handouts. Also make a few flashcards for some big topics.

[tfer2222]

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.

[AgentSCo]

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.

This sounds like a better approach for me. I'm a pretty slow reader, so whenever I go through the CMR, I feel like I'm spending too much time for only picking up a couple new nuggets of information.

[bgdddymtty]

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.

This sounds like a better approach for me. I'm a pretty slow reader, so whenever I go through the CMR, I feel like I'm spending too much time for only picking up a couple new nuggets of information.

The CMR thing might work for some people, but I feel like it's almost guaranteed to be a massive waste of time. A professor who has been in this field for (in most cases) decades and lecturing to bar candidates for years has prepared an outline of all of the things that they think are likely enough to be tested to be worth your time. Sure, there might be something that shows up on the bar that they missed, but how much extra time are you going to spend looking for and learning those extra esoteric points?

[dudders]

Anyone have any idea how we're supposed to be doing on essays at this point? I'm in an MEE state and my Barbri scores so far have been 2, 2.5, and 3. Ick.

[usuaggie]

Anyone have any idea how we're supposed to be doing on essays at this point? I'm in an MEE state and my Barbri scores so far have been 2, 2.5, and 3. Ick.

UBE state (MEE, MPT, MBE) and I have had a 3, 3, 3.5



is your name from HP? I like it.

[usuaggie]

Just received my first graded MPT and I am really annoyed. This is the extent of the comments.

Grade: 4.0
-Heading doesn't make sense
-well drafted
-also well drafted
-good job. good fact analysis

that's it. 8 pages of writing, four comments, none of them really explaining anything.

[RodneyBoonfield]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

[td6624]

in that scenario D had assumed the duty or whatever when he said he was getting help

or something

right? that's different than attempting to rescue and making a mistake that makes the injury worse. saying you're going to go help and then forgetting isn't like trying to help and screwing up.

i'm not feeling like being articulate today.

friday.

[td6624]

2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

actually i don't even think i understand what this means, practically speaking

so

nevermind me

[kaiser]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

[5ky]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

there's also two other particular points that are important here

1. you're under a duty to rescue (and subject to liability for negligent rescue) if you're the one who put P in danger. this specifically applies to P's question. the bit about him undertaking and then forgetting to follow through is basically superfluous.
2. you're under a duty to rescue (and subject to liability for negligent rescue) if you have a special relationship with the person in danger (parent-child, common carriers)

i'm not going to go through the entire PRE torts video, but if you pinpoint the timestamp in the video, i'd be interested to hear what you're referring to (about rescuers not being liable for negligence)

[Matteliszt]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?

[kaiser]

I'm assuming a bunch of people on here are NY BarBri folks. Can someone do me a huge favor? I do the fillable PDF's, but my corps. PDF accidentally got erased. I'd love to not have to re-watch 6 hours of video since I would be super behind. Can someone PM me about possibly emailing their corps. PDF handout? I would REALLY appreciate it, and I'd owe you bigtime.

[5ky]

This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?

see my above post. also, negligent supervision is really not actionable too often. it's covered on the last page of the torts CMR (slight majority of states have abolished parent-child immunity but most still don't allow children to sue merely for negligent supervision). for NY this also means that a third party claim of negligent supervision is a nonstarter

[kaiser]

I'm assuming a bunch of people on here are NY BarBri folks. Can someone do me a huge favor? I do the fillable PDF's, but my corps. PDF accidentally got erased. I'd love to not have to re-watch 6 hours of video since I would be super behind. Can someone PM me about possibly emailing their corps. PDF handout? I would REALLY appreciate it, and I'd owe you bigtime.

Bump

[RodneyBoonfield]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?

Yeah this is all what I thought. But after the lecturer made the rescue distinction re: the doctors and nurses, he then when on to discuss another exception stating specifically that rescuers (1) were protected from negligence when making a rescue; and (2) would have a cause of action against the D when performing a rescue. Maybe he misspoke or meant to relate this back to the doctors/nurses, but if that is the case he did not make it clear.

[kaiser]

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?

Yeah this is all what I thought. But after the lecturer made the rescue distinction re: the doctors and nurses, he then when on to discuss another exception stating specifically that rescuers (1) were protected from negligence when making a rescue; and (2) would have a cause of action against the D when performing a rescue. Maybe he misspoke or meant to relate this back to the doctors/nurses, but if that is the case he did not make it clear.

He did misspeak on the lecture, and made it sound like Good Samaritan statutes generally apply to anyone attempting rescue, whereas the CMR says that is not the case. I ended up getting a MC question wrong on that point because of it, but filled in the gap